Newspaper logo  
 
 
Print view: Gold for Executives, Contempt for Taxpayers
FISCAL MATTERS:

Gold for Executives, Contempt for Taxpayers

by Gerald E. Scorse
Twenty years on, after three presidencies and six Administrations, Section 162(m) stands as a classic example of good intentions leading to bad endings.

Jamie Dimon, the current chairman, president and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase, took high heat over his 74% mega-raise, but he’s not at fault. The blame goes to a 1993 boondoggle for bigwigs—a boondoggle that’s cost taxpayers by the billions ever since. Congress should call a halt, and the country’s mood could push it to do just that.

Ironically, the law that launched the boondoggle started out aiming to do the opposite. Lavish corporate pay packages had turned off many Americans as the 1990s began. To fight the trend, the ’92 Clinton-Gore campaign proposed a $1 million cap on the tax deductibility of salaries paid to a firm’s top echelon. Companies have an absolute right to set executive pay. Congress likewise has the right to limit the amount that qualifies as a corporate tax write-off. Once elected, Clinton moved to enact the reform.

The final result—Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code—ended up delivering gold to the corporate elite and a slap in the face to America’s taxpayers. The statute did impose a $1 million deductibility cap on publicly-held corporations, but it also created a huge loophole. It wrote into law what quickly became the most gilded words in the gilded world of executive compensation: "performance-based pay."

As long as the pay meets IRS benchmarks for “performance-based,” its deductibility is unlimited. Boards of directors routinely find ways to hand out mega-million packages of stock grants, stock options, profit-sharing, stock appreciation rights, every imaginable kind of executive sweetener. Twenty years on, after three presidencies and six Administrations, Section 162(m) stands as a classic example of good intentions leading to bad endings.

A 2012 study by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that Section 162(m) is costing the Treasury about $5 billion a year. A fair number of companies ignore the salary cap and pay more in taxes, but that revenue gets swamped by the shortfall from deductible corporate pay. The Treasury’s wounds from 162(m) have festered forever. With inequality soaring, a few in Congress are finally going after a law that works overtime to drive it higher.

In August 2013, Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act. Blunt title, blunt purpose: “This legislation would close a major loophole in current corporate tax law by putting an end to unlimited tax write-offs on performance-based executive pay.” The bill calls for a blanket $1 million deductibility cap. As Senator Blumenthal noted, corporations are free to “pay their executives whatever they wish, just not at the expense of American taxpayers...” (The same thinking, under the heading “Stop Subsidies for Excessive Compensation,” appears in the tax reform plan unveiled late last month by the GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee. That plan takes aim as well at the huge salaries paid out by non-profits.)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) introduced a House version of the Reed-Blumenthal bill earlier this year. “Most Americans,” the Congressman said, “would probably be surprised to learn that multimillion dollar executive bonuses are currently tax write-offs.”

Most Americans might be surprised, but legislators in both parties know only too well. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) formerly chaired the Senate Finance Committee. As the 2006 chair, he admitted that Section 162(m) “really hasn’t worked at all. Companies have found it easy to get around...It has more holes than Swiss cheese. And it seems to have encouraged the options industry.” Options play a big part in performance pay; in 2009, Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) co-sponsored a bill which would have extended the current $1 million cap to options awards.

Section 162(m) has failed as tax policy, but it does two things to perfection: it runs up federal red ink, and it shows contempt for taxpayers. Better late than never, Congress should act to stop the bleeding and end the long, long insult.


© 2014 Gerald E. Scorse. Scorse's articles on taxes have appeared in publications across the country.



Copyright © 2014 The Baltimore News Network. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.

This story was published on March 22, 2014.

 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

02.09 Air pollution raises risk of death 'for decades after exposure'

02.08 Sailing ships back in vogue as a green alternative to conventional shipping [Cool! New ships to be automated—think motorized sails]

02.08 UN agency seeks to end rift on new aircraft emission rules

02.08 The deadly toll of city smog

02.08 Surge in privatisation threatening free NHS treatment, unions say

02.07 New York investigates radioactive leak in groundwater near city

News Media Matters

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

02.09 G.O.P. Lawmakers Snub Obama’s Final Budget Sight Unseen

02.09 Bernie Sanders may win big this week. Our panelists share why he has their vote

02.08 The secrets behind the Koch brothers: Inside the remarkable new book that details their dirtiest deeds

02.08 In the age of all-American anger: Bernie Sanders, “The Big Short” & a nation that’s had it up to here

02.06 The Big Money Question at the Sanders-Clinton Debate

02.06 Bernie Sanders can beat Hillary Clinton, and Conservatives should take note

02.06 Elizabeth Warren Recalls a Time When Big Donors May Have Changed Hillary’s Vote [5:05 video]

02.06 The Vampire Squid Tells Us How to Vote

02.06 Speeches That Earned Clinton Millions Remain a Mystery [1:38 video]

Justice Matters

02.07 Holding Sentencing Reform Hostage

02.07 British American Tobacco faces call for bribery allegations inquiry

High Crimes?

02.08 Flint’s Crisis Is About More Than Water

02.05 FGM: number of victims found to be 70 million higher than thought

Economics, Crony Capitalism

02.09 Robert Reich: Democrats can’t give in to defeatism

02.09 'Panic situation': Asian stocks tumble amid fears of new global recession

02.09 What's holding back the world economy?

02.05 Oil nations face years of pain, says IMF chief Christine Lagarde

02.05 Norway's oil-based wealth fund sells out of more fossil fuel companies

International

02.09 Erdogan Threatened Europe with Refugees, now Demanding US abandon Syrian Kurds

02.09 It's not just water that's poisoning our kids; it's also our collapsing democracy

02.08 Brexit could lead to Jungle camp moving to England, No 10 to warn

02.07 The waterless toilet that turns your poo into power [3:40 video]

02.07 Jeremy Corbyn: UK can push for 'a real social Europe' by staying in EU

02.07 ‘Pay to stay’ trap will force working families out of council homes [it's a Tory government, so...]

02.07 30,000 North Korean children living in limbo in China

02.07 EU urges Turkey to open its borders to Syrians fleeing war-torn Aleppo

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web
 


Public Service Ads: