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 Gov’t Stories, Events

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

07.29 Where are the world’s most water-stressed cities?

07.28 The quest for clean water

07.28 HOW A NEW SOURCE OF WATER IS HELPING REDUCE CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST

07.28 Insecticide Can Cut Bee Sperm by Nearly 40 Percent, Study Finds

07.28 ExxonMobil Top Sponsor at ALEC's Upcoming Annual Meeting

07.28 Blasting "McCarthy-Like Overreach," State AGs, Climate Groups Won't Comply With GOP Subpoenas

07.27 Worse Than Keystone XL? TransCanada's Terrifying "Plan B" [map]

07.26 EPA ruling on aircraft emissions paves way for new regulations

07.26 How climate change is rapidly taking the planet apart [that "conservative" politicians blithely ignore this crisis is criminal and immoral]

07.26 The green deal is dead: time to revive the great British energy refurb

07.26 China's coal peak hailed as turning point in climate change battle

News Media Matters

07.29 Greenwald Explains What Out-of-Touch Media Doesn't Get About Trump, Russia, and US Electorate

07.28 Is the French Press Right to stop Printing Pictures, Names of Terrorists?

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

07.29 5 REASONS WHY TRUMP WILL WIN

07.29 Hillary Clinton's Democratic convention speech: what she said and what she meant [Hillary Clinton accepts nomination with 'boundless confidence in America's promise']

07.29 New York’s Most Dangerous Neighborhood is Safer than Baltimore

07.28 Bloomberg's Case Against Trump

07.28 The Next President Will Likely Appoint 4 Supreme Court Justices: Which President Do You Want Picking Them?

07.28 Campaigns End on Election Day. Revolutions Don't.

07.27 Why this is the perfect time to invest in infrastructure, and why it probably won’t happen

07.27 She's With Them–But We've Got Us: A Movement Bigger Than Sanders

07.27 'It's a matter of survival': the black Americans fighting for gun rights

Justice Matters

07.24 $1 billion alleged Medicare fraud, money laundering scheme leads to Florida arrests [more investigative staff—not staff cuts—could be vastly profitable!]

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

07.29 IMF admits disastrous love affair with the euro and apologises for the immolation of Greece

07.28 Ohio taking a reckless gamble with pension funds

07.28 Hillary’s Choice: Why Tim Kaine Isn’t a ‘Safe’ Pick

07.26 Japan’s “Helicopter Money” Play: Road to Hyperinflation or Cure for Debt Deflation?

07.24 Trump’s tax plan would do little for the average American but a lot for the 1%

International

07.29 'I begged them to kill me instead': women in South Sudan raped under nose of UN

07.28 The only way to defeat Islamic State is to give young Arabs hope

07.27 Welcome to the new age of uncertainty

07.27 Japan to unveil huge $266bn economic stimulus, say reports

07.27 MPs predict surge in immigration amid Brexit uncertainty

07.27 Catalonia tells Spain it will push for secession with or without assent

07.26 Apocalypse Now: A Year of Crises, Shocks and Fears of Terror

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: