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

02.27 How to Make College Cheaper

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

03.03 Air pollution will kill thousands in Europe, EEA warns

03.03 Scientists announce anti-HIV agent so powerful it can work in a vaccine

03.03 Ebola epidemic is 'wake-up call' for investment in universal healthcare

03.03 Water loss: seven things you need to know about an invisible global problem

03.03 Three to five cups of coffee a day may prevent heart attacks, says study

03.02 World's first lagoon power plants unveiled in UK [~1,000 comments]

03.02 Everything You've Been Told About Healthy Eating Is Wrong, Except This

03.02 Republicans Face A Choice on Obamacare

03.02 Pollution Documentary ‘Under the Dome’ Blankets Chinese Internet [1:43:55 video w/ English subtitles]

03.02 Under the sun: Australia's largest solar farm set to sprout in a Queensland field

03.02 Brazil's king of deforestation dethroned in drive to beat land clearers

News Media

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & Culture

03.03 Hillary Clinton's Contempt for Transparency

03.03 Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules

03.02 Scott Walker Loses His Mind: What’s Behind His Delusional ISIS-Unions Comparison

03.02 Americans Turning Away From Organized Religion in Record Numbers

03.02 Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America—And It’s Getting Worse

02.28 Eight dead in Missouri shooting rampage at multiple crime scenes, police say

02.28 Texas school on lockdown after spate of apparently random shootings

02.28 Gun-rights advocates fight Obama over ban on 'military-grade' AR-15 bullets

Justice Matters

03.03 Reporting Sexual Abuse in the Military Is "Inherently Unfair." Here's Why.

02.28 Truth and reconciliation is coming to America from the grassroots

High Crimes?

02.27 Aid agencies sound alarm on Gaza amid fears rebuilding could take a century

Economics, Crony Capitalism

03.02 Christie Settles $9 Billion NJ Pollution Case Against Exxon for $250 Million

02.28 Giving Obama fits: The Elizabeth Warren way

International

03.03 The Science of Why Republicans Are Dead Wrong About Climate Change and National Security

03.03 Postwar Rape: Were Americans As Bad as the Soviets?

03.03 The Mystery of the Netanyahu Disaster, and a Possible Explanation

03.03 Noam Chomsky: Why Israel's Netanyahu Is So Desperate to Prevent Peace with Iran

03.02 Symposium: The Dynamics of Possible Nuclear Extinction — February 28 - March 1, 2015

03.02 Iraq begins assault on Islamic State strongholds north of Baghdad

02.28 What We Still Need To Learn From Spock's Utopianism

02.28 World leaders condemn muder of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov

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: